Reid v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Parchman

    200 N.E.3d 499 (Ind. App. 2022)

    Accordingly, Parchman's Brady claim fails. See alsoReid v. State , 984 N.E.2d 1264, 1271-72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (concluding that the impeaching value of a twenty-four-year-old robbery conviction was negligible in light of all the evidence presented), trans. denied ; Carroll , 740 N.E.2d at 1230 (concluding that the impeaching value of six-year-old misdemeanor conviction for false informing was negligible in light of all the evidence presented). Because Parchman's Brady claim fails, the trial court abused its discretion when it granted his motion to correct error requesting a new trial.

  2. Benson v. State

    187 N.E.3d 904 (Ind. App. 2022)

    Therefore, Benson is not entitled to a new trial on the basis of a Brady violation or newly discovered evidence. SeeReid v. State , 984 N.E.2d 1264, 1271-72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (holding postconviction relief petitioner was not entitled to new trial because he was not prejudiced by the State's withholding of information that a witness committed an impeachable offense), trans. denied. [51] Benson also contends the State withheld in-car and body cam footage recorded by Officer Stacy Jenkins.

  3. State v. Avery

    2022 WI App. 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021)

    We agree with the State that District Attorney's Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne , 557 U.S. 52, 67-72 (2009), supports this conclusion; there the United States Supreme Court found that respondent did not have the same due process right in the postconviction context to access evidence in control of the state. SeeReid v. State , 984 N.E.2d 1264, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) ("Osborne ... indicates that an individual does not have a right under the Due Process Clause to access lost or destroyed evidence during post-conviction proceedings." (citation omitted)).

  4. Neeb v. State

    No. 20A-PC-795 (Ind. App. Oct. 13, 2020)

    Indiana courts have held that "a decision regarding what witnesses to call is a matter of trial strategy which an appellate court will not second-guess." Reid v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1264, 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Johnson v. State, 832 N.E.2d 985, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied) (quotations omitted), trans. denied. At the evidentiary hearing, Henke testified that he considered calling Gehlbach as a witness and decided not to as a matter of trial strategy.

  5. McKnight v. State

    1 N.E.3d 193 (Ind. App. 2013)   Cited 72 times
    Finding tape recording “must be of such clarity and completeness to preempt speculation in the minds of jurors as to its content” (quoting Dearman v. State, 743 N.E. 2d 757, 762 (Ind.2001) )

    Upon review, in light of all of the evidence presented at trial, the impeaching value of Rhymer's ten-year-old theft conviction was negligible, at best. See Carroll v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (impeaching value of six-year-old misdemeanor conviction for false informing was negligible in light of all the evidence presented), trans. denied (2001); see also Reid v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1264, 1271–72 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (impeaching value of twenty-four-year-old robbery conviction was negligible in light of independent evidence of guilt), trans. denied. Here, the jury was not exposed to someone portrayed as “a highly credible witness or an otherwise upstanding citizen.”